Okay. I'll agree. A man named Jesus could have existed and he could have been a cult leader of the time.

There is little doubt, however, that the character of Jesus the alleged Christ (the messiah of the Jewish people and the son of a god who performed sorcery and magic) could not have existed as portrayed in the New Testament. If a man named Jesus was a religious figure in antiquity, it isn't the same character of the bible.

For that Jesus (clearly a different person), there is no evidence.

Okay, for one, Jesus was not a "cult leader." Two, He did not perform sorcery or magic.

Therefore, since the christian community can provide no means to verify their claims that a man named jesus existed, no rational person should not accept the claim that a man named jesus existed. kthxbai.

The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been?

There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles. SD Nihil, or whatever (I probably got your name wrong) you say that we christians have "what we consider proof," and before you say that science or whatever has proof. We don't consider it proof, it IS proof.

The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been?

Making other claims is not providing evidence for original set of claims. Unless you meant something else, in which case, please provide sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Eclipse

There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles.

I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Eclipse

SD Nihil, or whatever (I probably got your name wrong) you say that we christians have "what we consider proof," and before you say that science or whatever has proof. We don't consider it proof, it IS proof.

Okay, for one, Jesus was not a "cult leader." Two, He did not perform sorcery or magic.

1.) He is alleged by biblical mythology to have set and/or maintained standards of worship and ritual and that he had a following. By that alone it's apparent that he was a cult leader... I don't understand the objection...

2.) We're in agreement. I, too, don't think he performed sorcery and magic since such silliness doesn't appear to exist in reality. It is, however, alleged that he did in biblical mythology, which is one of the reasons I assert that the Jesus of biblical mythology (as told in biblical mythology) didn't actually exist, maintaining instead that a cult leader of the time may have existed and may have been named Jesus (or Yesua, or any other name) and the myth could be based on this cult leader.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Eclipse

The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been?

Where does it do this within the framework of reality?

Quote:

There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles.

The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been?

There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles. SD Nihil, or whatever (I probably got your name wrong) you say that we christians have "what we consider proof," and before you say that science or whatever has proof. We don't consider it proof, it IS proof.

Please, Darth Eclipse, enlighten me.

From one Christian to another, I do want to ask one question:
If we can verify that he performed miracles, why don't we all know about it? Why isn't the papacy using that to convert the masses (even further)? I'm not sure why it's still such a secret.

Well Darth Eclipse and SkinWalker, I spoke to True_Avery elsewhere on this and I have to agree w㝨it her. Whether or not Jesus existed or not is truly subjective. So Skinwalker that is my position. Now I know it isn't the typical position for a topic like this such as arguing he existed, or that he didn't exist. But you can have a third position that it is subjective. Again that is my position.

Whether or not Jesus existed or not is truly subjective. So Skinwalker that is my position. Now I know it isn't the typical position for a topic like this such as arguing he existed, or that he didn't exist. But you can have a third position that it is subjective. Again that is my position.

Its okay to say, "I don't know." But it looks like that isn't what you're doing. It looks like you're saying that Jesus (as depicted in biblical mythology) can exist or not exist depending upon the individual. That simply isn't the case nor is it rational.

It would be akin to stating that the existence of Peter Pan is subjective. The existence of this person doesn't change or fluxuate depending upon the individual. Either Pan existed or he didn't. To assert that he did implies certain qualities about Peter Pan that are either in reality or they aren't. If they aren't, and exist only in story and legend, then the Peter Pan of the story exists only in Disney Lore and not in reality.

If, however, we can demonstrate that a person once lived and stopped aging in a place called Never, Never Land; could fly with pixie dust; and defeated a pirate -then we have qualities that fit the story of Peter Pan and its reasonable to apply them to the story, making the central character a reality.

Likewise, with Jesus, there are qualities about this alleged messiah that make up the character. Its easy enough to show that the name Jesus in its original Hebrew was in use during the first century BCE. Its easy enough to show that religious superstitions and political agendas existed among the Hebrew people of the region at the same time. It is, then, easy to conclude that a person named Jesus created a cult following based on these superstitions.

However, what cannot be shown, is that the person above -who may have inspired the myth that followed, actually performed the deeds mentioned in biblical mythology. Indeed, enough of these deeds, actions and accounts are contradictory, improbable and irrational so as to demonstrate that such a person almost certainly did not exist.

Therefore, the existence or non-existence of Jesus, the alleged christ, is not a subjective position.

This appears to become where it's all subjective. Almost precludes taking any absolute position either way.

Allow me to clarify: I use "almost certainly" in the same way I would say that the Earth almost certainly revolves around the sun. Or, the ball I throw in the air will almost certainly be affected by gravity. Therefore, my usage is subjective only so far as there always exists possibilities based on information I'm not yet aware of. Perhaps Vogons will arrive and clear our fair planet from the intergalactic space lanes invalidating both assumptions. I doubt it, but this remains a possibility however remote.

Perhaps our friend at the top of the page will return with his "proofs," but, again, I doubt it. And, again, this remains a possibility, however, remote. And, as such, I can only say that Jesus, as depicted in biblical mythology, almost certainly did not exist. Regardless of my perception of his existence or non-existence, he did either exist or not exist and, therefore, his existence or non-existence is not subjective. That is to say, his existence or non-existence does not hinge upon my belief in one or the other or on a consensus of belief among a majority populace that follow the Christian superstition.

Allow me to clarify: I use "almost certainly" in the same way I would say that the Earth almost certainly revolves around the sun. Or, the ball I throw in the air will almost certainly be affected by gravity. Therefore, my usage is subjective only so far as there always exists possibilities based on information I'm not yet aware of.

Exactly my point. For the record, the probabilities of your position may be better. So we're clear, though, I wasn't stating (even if the other guy was) that the actual existence was subjective, merely our conclusions about it.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Okay, for one, Jesus was not a "cult leader." Two, He did not perform sorcery or magic.

Huh? What do you call transmutation? Magic happens at Catholic churches every Sunday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Eclipse

The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been?

There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles. SD Nihil, or whatever (I probably got your name wrong) you say that we christians have "what we consider proof," and before you say that science or whatever has proof. We don't consider it proof, it IS proof.

Fantastic! I am anxious for a link, a peer-reviewed publication, or something, anything tangible, to support this absurd claim.
Also, you have contradicted yourself substantially, if you recognize the similarity of "miracle" and "magic".... er, how are they different again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EW

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

Again that is my position.

Unfortunately, it is an incorrect position.

Just because you believe/don't believe doesn't change the facts. "Jesus Existed" - it's a normative claim.

Bingo. SD Nihil, fence-sitting is for watching the match, not for being in it. You need to pick a side in this debate, and find evidence, or keep sitting on the fence and stay out of the fray.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail - the longest book full of names I have ever forced myself to finish - still produced nothing concrete about Jesus, only about Jesus' fanatical followers. As many have noted in this thread, there is no genuine article to substantiate the claim that Jesus was.

Falling back on "faith" is what angers both non-believers and believers alike. Faith is something you keep, and hold as a hope, something that may be, and you can believe it to be true if you like; we are all entitled to deceive ourselves as much as we like. Believing in God does not prevent people from thinking critically, and many devout believers of the pantheon can recognize that proof is lacking, can admit to it, and finally do not need it - that is the place of faith. It supplants the need for proof.

Exactly my point. For the record, the probabilities of your position may be better. So we're clear, though, I wasn't stating (even if the other guy was) that the actual existence was subjective, merely our conclusions about it.

Should you rule out anything as a possibility if it hasn't been 100% debunked? Remember, there's a significant difference between probability and possibility.

Well there in lies the problem, virtually nothing cannot be 100% debunked. The thing is when there is absolutely no good reason to believe something existed or exists, why would you choose that over say, Rapokoten the magician-sorceror of the 1300s (hey, he could have existed)!

And your point is? Perhaps he* existed, perhaps you made him up. I'd say the probability of the latter is most likely. Not sure what you're getting so exercised over, though. It's simply an issue of semantics, ie. possibility vs probability. Since Jesus hasn't been in fact proven to be fiction, but appears probably so to debunkers, then our conclusions about Him remain subjective.

*gonna guess he was the divine sorcerer for the FSM.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

It all comes back to a single question: what good reason is there to believe that Jesus, as depicted in biblical mythology, actually existed?

Not a guy named Jesus who was a teacher and biblical myth is loosely based upon, but the divine god -the miracle working Jesus Christ of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. What good reason is there to believe this character was real?

Let me just say, in the Bible, it says that Jesus said the He is the Son of God. So, he was either lying, he was crazy, or he was telling the truth.

The character portrayed in biblical mythology didn't actually write any of it. There are several accounts by several anonymous authors of Jesus the alleged christ, but they vary in ways that are inconsistent and occasionally even contradict each other. Moreover, stating that Jesus is real because Jesus says he is is a circular argument and one that is dismissed from intellectual discourse. If you're willing to accept this argument, then you must, necessarily, accept that the crazy guy in Miami, FL who claims to be Jesus is, in fact, Jesus.

Quote:

If you don't believe in the Bible, I will just say that the Bible has been more historically accurate than any other ancient manuscript.

Not even close. Just off the top of my head, the Armarna Letters and the writings of Plato have been shown to be more accurate. Very little in biblical mythology has been born out as factual. Just out of curiosity, what is it, specifically, that leads you to believe that the bible is historically accurate?

Let me just say, in the Bible, it says that Jesus said the He is the Son of God. So, he was either lying, he was crazy, or he was telling the truth.

Well this is some compelling evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Eclipse

If you don't believe in the Bible, I will just say that the Bible has been more historically accurate than any other ancient manuscript.

Hmm, and is this your opinion? Or do you actually have some basis for this claim? Either way, you telling me that God exists because the Bible ["The Word of God"] says God exists is a bit of a tautology, isn't it?

The character portrayed in biblical mythology didn't actually write any of it. There are several accounts by several anonymous authors of Jesus the alleged christ, but they vary in ways that are inconsistent and occasionally even contradict each other. Moreover, stating that Jesus is real because Jesus says he is is a circular argument and one that is dismissed from intellectual discourse. If you're willing to accept this argument, then you must, necessarily, accept that the crazy guy in Miami, FL who claims to be Jesus is, in fact, Jesus.

Not even close. Just off the top of my head, the Armarna Letters and the writings of Plato have been shown to be more accurate. Very little in biblical mythology has been born out as factual. Just out of curiosity, what is it, specifically, that leads you to believe that the bible is historically accurate?

Okay, the people who wrote the Bible are not anonymous. They say who they are. Some even write about their own experiences.

You've never read the Bible, have you? I would suggest reading it, then coming back to this thread and tell me what you think. Anyways, you tell me where in the Bible it contradicts itself. Tell me one place. Just one place. You can tell me more if you would like but I only need one.

Here is one example of how historically accurate the Bible is: Shechem, Bethel, Haran, and Gerar have all been excavated and proven to be in existence at Abraham's time. Even his home town of Ur has been discovered and excavated. An abundance of evidence surfaced to disprove the notion that Abraham's era was one of ignorance. Found were receipts for business transactions; temple hymns; others were mathematical tables with formulae for calculating square and cube roots as well as simpler sums. All these were strangely contemporary. According to Millar Burrows "...his name appears in Babylonia as a personal name in the very period to which be belongs." (What Mean These Stones?, p.259).

Another: Forty-six times the Hittites are mentioned in the Bible (Joshua 3:10). No mention is made of them in secular history. Before the 20th century, many said this was a fictitious empire. A.A. Sayce suggested that he found Hittite writings in Syria. Hugo Winckler excavated Boghazkoy, the Hittite capital, in 1906. Over 10,000 tests were found. Now you can graduate with a doctorate degree in Hittitolgy at the University of Pennsylvania.

And another: Jericho was excavated by Dr. John Garstang between 1930 and 1936. He found that the great wall was 12' think and the outer wall 12' thick both being thirty feet high, fell "down flat". "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up land over their ruins into the city." (The Foundations of Bible History; Joshua, Judges, p. 146). Walls normally fall inward. "So the people shouted when the priests blew the trumpets. And it happened when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat. Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city (6:20). Joshua chapter six and verse twenty-four says, "They burnt the city with fire". Garstang found charcoal and ash and pockets of white ash. God commanded them to "keep yourselves form the devoted thing" (6:18). Again, Garstang found storerooms full of food turned to charcoal by fire.

If you want some more, I can give you more. Just ask.

Here, read this: Throughout the years critics have attacked the Bible because it was filled with historical blunders. They viewed it as fictional and highly imaginative. At one time the records of secular history didn't mention some 47 kings found in the Bible.
If the book is inspired of God we can expect it to be historically correct. If the Bible is not accurate historically then is accurate concerning spiritual matters? This lesson will forcible demonstrate that the historical record of history and the Bible record are very compatible.
The Bible is not a history book. Nonetheless, whenever God's Word incidentally touches on any aspect of history it is always accurate. "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." (William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel, pp. 127,128). Merrill Unger wrote, "Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of Biblical backgrounds." (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 15). "Archeology is a real help in understanding the Bible. It yields fascinating information which illustrates what might otherwise be obscured, and in some instances confirms what some might otherwise regard as doubtful." (Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe, p. 88).
Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. More than 25,000 sites showing some connection with the Old Testament period have been located in Bible lands. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, former professor of Semitic philology at Princeton Theological Seminary, said, "After forty-five years of scholarly research in Biblical textual studies and in language study. I have come now to the conviction that no man knows enough to assail the truthfulness of the Old Testament. Where there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible, in the original text, have stood the test." Furthermore, the noted Dr. J.O. Kinnaman said, "of the hundreds of thousands of artifacts found by other archaeologists, not one has ever been discovered that contradicts or denies one word, phrase, clause, or sentence of the bible, but always confirms and verifies the facts of the Biblical record." If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity.

Okay, the people who wrote the Bible are not anonymous. They say who they are.

(with the exception of Paul's letters and arguably G. John.)

Really? Where?

Where in any of the gospels does it read "And Jesus said to me, 'hey Luke (Mark/Matthew/John), __________________" ?

The gospels are unsigned. They are commonly attributed to men named "Luke", "Matthew", and "Mark", however it could've been any one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Eclipse

You've never read the Bible, have you? I would suggest reading it, then coming back to this thread and tell me what you think. Anyways, you tell me where in the Bible it contradicts itself. Tell me one place. Just one place. You can tell me more if you would like but I only need one.

By this same reasoning, the discovery of Troy confirms the events of the Iliad and is evidence that the Grecian pantheon of gods and goddesses really exist. Or to borrow from an earlier analogy, the confirmation of the city of London shows that there really was a boy wizard named "Harry".

Authors use actual people/places in fictional works all the time. That doesn't make them "historically accurate"

By this same reasoning, the discovery of Troy confirms the events of the Iliad and is evidence that the Grecian pantheon of gods and goddesses really exist. Or to borrow from an earlier analogy, the confirmation of the city of London shows that there really was a boy wizard named "Harry".

Authors use actual people/places in fictional works all the time. That doesn't make them "historically accurate"

Neither of your examples make any sense, or have anything to do with what I was saying.

Also, did you even read anything on the link to that website you gave me? I didn't ask for someone else's oppinions, I want yours and other people on this forum's. Come on Achilles, give me a real, valid argument.

Well, the only thing about using contemporary examples is that we know they're fiction.

Just like we know the Bible is fiction right? So Greek mythology, the Qur'an, every other book out there that can somehow be twisted into a religion is fiction. But when it comes to the Bible, "no, there is a possibility!" I think I said it before, what makes the Bible a special case?

Neither of your examples make any sense, or have anything to do with what I was saying.

They absolutely do. Your argument is that verification of places somehow validates stories. You cannot have it both ways. If the argument works for the bible, per your insistence, then it similarly has to work for any other writing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Eclipse

Also, did you even read anything on the link to that website you gave me? I didn't ask for someone else's oppinions, I want yours and other people on this forum's. Come on Achilles, give me a real, valid argument.

Indeed I have. I have it bookmarked and reference often when debating True Believers. You asked for a single example of a biblical contradiction. I provided several. Moving the goalpost won't work.

Okay, the people who wrote the Bible are not anonymous. They say who they are. Some even write about their own experiences.

While I agree that there are authors whom we're reasonably sure of their identity, most of the core texts within biblical mythology are by anonymous authors. The 'gospels,' the Pentateuch, etc.

Quote:

You've never read the Bible, have you?

Yes. In depth.

Quote:

Anyways, you tell me where in the Bible it contradicts itself. Tell me one place. Just one place. You can tell me more if you would like but I only need one.

Sure. One contradiction: In Matthew, a book written by an anonymous author (hint: the title isn't the author), Joseph's (the father of Jesus) is alleged to be Jacob. However, in Luke (another anonymous author), Joseph's father is supposed to be Heli. Who was Jacob's father?

Here is one example of how historically accurate the Bible is: Shechem, Bethel, Haran, and Gerar have all been excavated and proven to be in existence at Abraham's time.

"Proven to be" of the time of Abraham is a fallacious assumptions since Abraham is a myth and without evidence for existence. However, if we extrapolate that you mean [i]the time at which Abraham is said to have lived,[i] then we mean a period contemporary with Ur, the site of which is a tell in Iraq called el-Mukayyar and its peak occupancy was at around 2600 BCE.

Bethel, also known as Beiten, its occupation was at around 1240-1235 BCE.

Shechem, also known as Tell el-Balatah, was occupied from about 1900 - 100 BCE.

Gerar was first occupied at around 1300 BCE (if memory serves correct).

And Haran I've never heard of, but I'll take your word for it that it is real (or perhaps you mistyped).

None of these settlements are shown to have occupation levels during the 3rd millennium BCE, which is the period Abraham is alleged to have lived.

Quote:

Even his home town of Ur has been discovered and excavated.

Ur has been excavated. No sign of Abraham, however. Indeed, there's more evidence for the historicity of the mythical figure Gilgamesh than Abraham!

What you're doing is committing a fallacy which presupposes that since place-names in biblical mythology really do exist, therefore biblical accounts of events are accurate. The problem is, many if not most of the place-names do not coincide with suggested timelines of biblical mythology. Indeed, the stories written in the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, read as historicized fiction. In other words, the anonymous authors of the Pentateuch (that's the first five books of the OT, by the way) seemed eager to propagandize their legitimacy to the people. If anything, this is human nature and a common political practice still in use today.

Quote:

An abundance of evidence surfaced to disprove the notion that Abraham's era was one of ignorance. Found were receipts for business transactions; temple hymns; others were mathematical tables with formulae for calculating square and cube roots as well as simpler sums. All these were strangely contemporary. According to Millar Burrows "...his name appears in Babylonia as a personal name in the very period to which be belongs." (What Mean These Stones?, p.259).

And yet none of this is relevant to demonstrating the veracity of biblical claims. Was there a point you were getting at? Perhaps, as an archaeologist, I can help you elucidate it.

Quote:

Another: Forty-six times the Hittites are mentioned in the Bible (Joshua 3:10). No mention is made of them in secular history.

The Egyptians wrote extensively on the Hittites and the Battle of Qadesh. The writings can be found on temples at Abu Simbel and Medinet Habu. But then I'm not sure what you mean by "secular history." Very little information provided in biblical mythology is actually useful in reconstructing the Hittite Empire. Indeed, there is still some question as to whether the Hittites described in biblical mythology are actually the same culture we archaeologists have finally assigned the name "Hittite." I tend to think they probably are, after all, even the anonymous authors of the Old Testament would have been aware of an Empire this size and would naturally have incorporated them into their mythos.

Quote:

And another: Jericho was excavated by Dr. John Garstang between 1930 and 1936. He found that the great wall was 12' think and the outer wall 12' thick both being thirty feet high, fell "down flat".

I'm always amazed at the ability of those with preconceived conclusions to seek only that data which are confirming, and ignoring or searching no further for data which are contradictory. The way science is done, my friend, is that the person with an hypothesis seeks first to falsify it. What you're doing is starting with a conclusion and seeking only to confirm it.

Garstang's excavations took place in the 1930s and the science of archaeology was still in its infancy. There was much still to be learned about stratigraphy, dating, and applying context.

Kathleen Kenyon came along in the 1950s and improved upon Garstang's work. She showed that the famed "walls of Jericho" were not of the period that the Israelite conquest is alleged to have occurred but of a much earlier period. Kenyon, being a Christian, reasoned that the anonymous authors of the Old Testament would easily have assigned the destruction of Jericho's walls by earthquake to be a divine intervention (Kenyon 1957: 262).

The double walls there were much older and likely for an entirely different purpose than fortification. Jericho is the lowest, permanently inhabited place in the Levant (if not the world) and, thus, prone to flooding (they were an agricultural settlement). The walls were double and probably designed to protect the settlement from the incursion of water. Indeed, the "wall of Jericho" is dated back to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (8300-7400 BCE) along with a stone tower designed for grain storage (probably the world's first grain silo) which would get that grain off the wet, flood prone ground.

Quote:

"As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up land over their ruins into the city."

Unfortunately for biblical literalists who hold that biblical mythology is the inerrant word of a god, this doesn't work. The Israelite conquest would have occurred in the 13th century BCE. Jericho simply wasn't occupied at that time in the way the bible suggests. The walls that were there fell in the 15th century BCE and the site remained unoccupied until the 14th century BCE and then only by a poor, almost insignificant, settlement which was completely unfortified.

What likely happened was that there was an oral tradition that told the story of how the walls were toppled during an earthquake and Israelite propagandists hijacked and exploited it, fitting it into their own history for selfish purposes, adjusting the timeline accordingly. In other words, the anonymous authors of the Pentateuch were liars.

Quote:

If you want some more, I can give you more. Just ask.

You decide. I'm an archaeologist and an anthropologist. I can do this all day.

Quote:

Please, make sure to read everything I posted.

It would be better if it was actually coming from you and not Danny Vess. I recognize his words. Are you in the habit of plagiarizing the works of others? The least you can do is cite his essay, Is the Bible Historically Accurate? and give him credit where credit is due.

In the end, the best you've done is attempt to argue that because biblical authors were aware of the place-names in the Levant, and included these place-names in biblical mythology, that, therefore, biblical mythology is the divine word of a god.

This argumentation is flawed in many ways, not the least of which is that many of the place-names in biblical mythology simply do not match the chronology presented. Listing kings and names of cities is one thing. Many ancient texts do this. Implying that because these lists are accurate (assuming for a moment that they are), the magical and supernatural portions of the bible are also accurate is fallacious.

References

Albright, W.F. (1939). The Israelite Conquet of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 74, 11-23.

Dever, William G. (2003). Who Where the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Your posts never cease to be very educational, Skinwalker. This thread is turning out very interesting. I'm glad you take the time to debate like this, because; not only is the debate itself beneficial to those debating, but also to the observers like me; whom can learn a lot from it.

Thanks for the kind words. I long ago realized that changing the mind of the person I'm arguing with is unlikely (although it has happened), those on the sidelines might find the information useful. That's why I try to include citations to actual journals and texts where appropriate, since I realize that these are helpful for the student looking for more information or putting together research papers on related topics.

Thanks for the kind words. I long ago realized that changing the mind of the person I'm arguing with is unlikely (although it has happened), those on the sidelines might find the information useful. That's why I try to include citations to actual journals and texts where appropriate, since I realize that these are helpful for the student looking for more information or putting together research papers on related topics.

My beliefs will never change, and I highly doubt you guys are intelligent enough to change yours, therefore this topic and this forums is useless. Since this thread is useless I am wasting my valuable time, I am not going to post anything else in the senate chambers for a while. You guys need to find something to do with your lives besides argue about something useless to argue about here

My beliefs will never change, and I highly doubt you guys are intelligent enough to change yours, therefore this topic and this forums is useless. Since this thread is useless I am wasting my valuable time, I am not going to post anything else in the senate chambers for a while. You guys need to find something to do with your lives besides argue about something useless to argue about here

Honestly, I'm sad to see you go. My "beliefs" are all provisional and subject to change, which I readily admit and announce. I need only sufficient evidence to revise them.

It is interesting, though hardly surprising that you so vehemently state your beliefs will never change. This suggests that you have a preconceived conclusion to which you are only interested in that data which are supportive and will ignore, out of hand, any information which contradicts, criticizes or even brings into question your indoctrinated beliefs.

I can appreciate the difficulty of applying critical thought to an issue you've so obviously spent years accepting without question, but not to do so betrays your own reluctance to even consider the positions of others.

You deem the thread and forum "useless" yet leave refutations of your post above untouched and without further rebuttal.

You entered the thread of your own free will and made baseless and unsupported assertions and claims. If you leave now, the only thing you've gained is helping me educate those that might be sitting the fence.

While I appreciate the assistance, I'd much rather engage in intelligent discourse on matters of the archaeological and anthropological history of the Levant as it relates to Jesus the alleged christ and the bible in general.

Thanks for you time all the same and should you choose to return, you are most welcome.